My point is simply this: Christians have limited resources, and it is our responsibility to use discretion to ensure that those resources are used to do the most good. Sometimes that means putting you and your family first.

I just wonder how one could justify the claim that the resources are used to do the most good by not sharing e.g. with the refugees from Syria.
I have no doubt that if we were in their situation, we would agree that we should share to a much larger degree. Compared to them our problems are minor though they are not unimportant. If this is not a time in which we should focus on those in need I hardly dare image the situations in which we should.

I feel a bit uneasy about the fact that you are trying to put a Christian justification on putting yourself first. You have not convinced me but I'd be interested in reading your arguments on that.

The Biblical concept is agape which is a Greek word that refers to group attachment and doing what is in the best interest of the group even at the cost of the individual (the Ancient Near East culture in which the Bible was written was collectivist rather than individualist). It's why both Jesus and Paul instructed believers to shun those who stirred up trouble in the church and to put them out of the community. You could argue that the troublemaker is just as much in need of group attachment and edification as the more faithful members, but the Biblical mandate is clear: kick him out and lock the door behind him.

To put it another way, I think it would be evil to force your own children to starve while you gave food to the homeless. Or to put it yet another way, should I recklessly throw my resources at every supposed charity case that walks through my door only to then find myself unable to help someone who is truly in need?

Curt, no other country on planet earth gives more money to charity than the USA. The USA is the largest sender of missionaries to the world. The USA is the dominant maintainer of peace in the world. Like it or not, we already do more than everyone else. So, we take kindly to people telling us what is charitable and what isn't reasonable balance. In fact, if you are not a citizen, you really have no say at all. The majority had their say and they are tired of the liberals killing our country with their entitlements and new age humanistic politics.

There are going to be some people really peeved when they get to heaven and learn that God has common sense and expected us to use our brains.

Brent, I fear it is not going to continue like that. Your status has declined hugely because of Trump. You can say I have no say or you can claim I lack common sense. I feel free to voice my oppinion. And I have yet to see convincing arguments for not helping refugees from Syria. Talking down to me is not going to change my view.

I have yet to see convincing arguments for not helping refugees from Syria.

It depends on what you mean by "helping refugees from Syria". If you mean individuals taking aid to those living in Syria, or bringing refugees here and being personally responsible and accountable for them then you'll find no argument from me. If you're talking about "helping" them by throwing open the doors of our borders and letting just anybody in, including those who wish to do us harm, then I think there are several obvious arguments against it. Governments should not be in the charity business. That's a mandate for the individual.

And yet far poorer countries have been taking far more than the USA and Europe.

I wonder why you guys need to continue your personal attacks. Why is it not enough for you to just disagree and provide oppinions and facts for everyone to see? Only those who cannot really justify their cause to a rational mind will fear the freedom of speach.

When you attack our country you make it personal. There in no country in the world with more debt than the United States, end of story. You don't know how much it cost to settle uneducated immigrants from Syria. It is not the job of the US to look after everyone. So leave.

I have an oppinion. An oppinion on how things should be done is not an attack. I talk about Europe too so according to your logic I'm attacking myself. The best countries in the world are those in which we can have an open and honest discussion. If you are afraid of that you do not really believe in democracy and freedom of speach.

You are from the outside looking in. We are here. We live it. Your opinion is very different than ours because ours is based upon information gained by personal experience. We live things you don't understand. What sounds nice and tidy theoretically to you is one thing. What is reality here is not so nice and tidy for us. You are Monday morning quarterbacking. We have enough of that here from the liberal media and whatever losing political party/special interest group was unable to live up to their own hype and win an election.

I am taking about Europe too, so most of what you say is unbalanced. You have held oppinions on Sweden and Germany. So it is ok for you to have an oppinion on other countries but not the other way around?

Have you seen the conditions in which refugees live? Or die? Have you seen or lived under the conditions in far poorer countries taking far more refugees than USA and Europe? Have you given any reason to believe those who are far better of than them should not help? Your perspective on these matters seem to lack an understanding of the need in which others find themselves.